While Bartholomeusz constructs a moral high-ground when presenting her arguments, Evmvic

predominantly uses voice of reasoning as his tool to develop the counterarguments against
Bartholomeusz. Evmvic dismisses shifting Australia Day as Aboriginal Australians are suitably
recognised each year. Via repetition of time-labelling phrases such as “since 1933”, “since 1975”,
and “since 1998”, Evmvic rejects Bartholomeusz’s viewpoint that Aboriginal culture are not fully
recognised by exemplifying using specific time that Australia has started to acknowledge the
equal identity of Indigenous communities long ago. As such, he manages to reassure the
audience, especially progressives who value societal changes, that their country is making great
effort to re-establish the interracial relationship in seek for social unity. Moreover, to reject
Bartholomeusz’s perspectives, Evmvic employs a juxtaposition of pronouns in “are you proposing
that we introduce another day?” A contrast of pronouns between “you” and “we” in his
questioning distinguishes the majority group of Australia Day supporters, including Evmvic
himself, from Bartholomeusz, a critic who proposes rebellious ideas against the widely celebrated
national day. With a negative characterisation of his oppositions as such, Evmvic undermines
their influence by isolating them from the rest of the society using different pronouns. Thus, his
conservative audience are led to the realisation that the critics’ proposal is not consistent with
the mainstream society; therefore, guarding the legal celebration of Australia Day is reasonable
and vital.

Whilst Bartholomeusz focuses on hist0orical injustices imposed by the day on Indigenous groups,
Evmvic seeks to maintain the status quo of Australia Day celebration. He dismisses the proposal
of shifting Australia Day as Aboriginal Australians are suitably recognised each year. Through
signposting a list of existing recognition for Indigenous community such as “NAIDOC Weeks”,
“Mabo Day”, and “National Sorry Day”, Evmvic explicitly recounts the day in memorial of
Aboriginal heritages and past sufferings. By starting separate paragraphs to highlight the special
days established to celebrate the magnificent culture as well as to bemoan the historical
injustices and oppression experienced by Aboriginal generations, Evmvic illustrates that
introducing another day is totally unnecessary given there are so many pre-existing occasion for
Aboriginal people to commemorate their ancestors and white groups to express their sorrow.
Targeting his conservative audience, who value the status quo, Evmvic show approval to their
ideology when discussing the Australia Day and emboldens them to keep the date as it is in order
to give the mainstream society an opportunity to applaud for the found of Australia as a country.
Reflecting the same idea, Evmvic utilises exaggeration that “soon we’ll be handing out
celebrations like participation ribbons to every minority group who simply jumps up and down
and makes the most noise” to caution the overemphasise on Aboriginal issues in the
contemporary society of Australia. Here, he mocks those activists who advocate for Indigenous
rights blindly while ignoring the splendid history and achievement of Australia as a nation. Again,
he targets the conservative readership by warning them of the diminishment of national spirit
reflected by Australia Day due to the endless campaign on Indigenous issues.